Non-Functional Requirements: Quality

Posted on 2020-02-02 by Elmar Dott

published also on DZone 02.2020

By experience, most of us know how difficult it is to express what we mean talking about quality. Why is that so? There exist many different views on quality and every one of them has its importance. What has to be defined for our project is something that fits its needs and works with the budget. Trying to reach perfectionism can be counterproductive if a project is to be terminated successfully. We will start based on a research paper written by B. W. Boehm in 1976 called “Quantitative evaluation of software quality.” Boehm highlights the different aspects of software quality and the right context. Let’s have a look more deeply into this topic.

When we discuss quality, we should focus on three topics: code structure, implementation correctness, and maintainability. Many managers just care about the first two aspects, but not about maintenance. This is dangerous because enterprises will not invest in individual development just to use the application for only a few years. Depending on the complexity of the application the price for creation could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then it’s understandable that the expected business value of such activities is often highly estimated. A lifetime of 10 years and more in production is very typical. To keep the benefits, adaptions will be mandatory. That implies also a strong focus on maintenance. Clean code doesn’t mean your application can simply change. A very easily understandable article that touches on this topic is written by Dan Abramov. Before we go further on how maintenance could be defined we will discuss the first point: the structure.

Scaffolding Your Project

An often underestimated aspect in development divisions is a missing standard for project structures. A fixed definition of where files have to be placed helps team members find points of interests quickly. Such a meta-structure for Java projects is defined by the build tool Maven. More than a decade ago, companies tested Maven and readily adopted the tool to their established folder structure used in the projects. This resulted in heavy maintenance tasks, given the reason that more and more infrastructure tools for software development were being used. Those tools operate on the standard that Maven defines, meaning that every customization affects the success of integrating new tools or exchanging an existing tool for another.

Another aspect to look at is the company-wide defined META architecture. When possible, every project should follow the same META architecture. This will reduce the time it takes a new developer to join an existing team and catch up with its productivity. This META architecture has to be open for adoptions which can be reached by two simple steps:

Don’t be concerned with too many details;
Follow the KISS (Keep it simple, stupid.) principle.

A classical pattern that violates the KISS principle is when standards heavily got customized. A very good example of the effects of strong customization is described by George Schlossnagle in his book “Advanced PHP Programming.” In chapter 21 he explains the problems created for the team when adopting the original PHP core and not following the recommended way via extensions. This resulted in the effect that every update of the PHP version had to be manually manipulated to include its own development adaptations to the core. In conjunction, structure, architecture, and KISS already define three quality gates, which are easy to implement.

The open-source project TP-CORE, hosted on GitHub, concerns itself with the afore-mentioned structure, architecture, and KISS. There you can find their approach on how to put it in practice. This small Java library rigidly defined the Maven convention with his directory structure. For fast compatibility detection, releases are defined by semantic versioning. The layer structure was chosen as its architecture and is fully described here. Examination of their main architectural decisions concludes as follows:

Each layer is defined by his own package and the files following also a strict rule. No special PRE or POST-fix is used. The functionality Logger, for example, is declared by an interface called Logger and the corresponding implementation LogbackLogger. The API interfaces can detect in the package “business” and the implementation classes located in the package “application.” Naming like ILogger and LoggerImpl should be avoided. Imagine a project that was started 10 years ago and the LoggerImpl was based on Log4J. Now a new requirement arises, and the log level needs to be updated during run time. To solve this challenge, the Log4J library could be replaced with Logback. Now it is understandable why it is a good idea to name the implementation class like the interface, combined with the implementation detail: it makes maintenance much easier! Equal conventions can also be found within the Java standard API. The interface List is implemented by an ArrayList. Obviously, again the interface is not labeled as something like IList and the implementation not as ListImpl .

Summarizing this short paragraph, a full measurement rule set was defined to describe our understanding of structural quality. By experience, this description should be short. If other people can easily comprehend your intentions, they willingly accept your guidance, deferring to your knowledge. In addition, the architect will be much faster in detecting rule violations.

Measure Your Success

The most difficult part is to keep a clean code. Some advice is not bad per se, but in the context of your project, may not prove as useful. In my opinion, the most important rule would be to always activate the compiler warning, no matter which programming language you use! All compiler warnings will have to be resolved when a release is prepared. Companies dealing with critical software, like NASA, strictly apply this rule in their projects resulting in utter success.

Coding conventions about naming, line length, and API documentation, like JavaDoc, can be simply defined and observed by tools like Checkstyle. This process can run fully automated during your build. Be careful; even if the code checkers pass without warnings, this does not mean that everything is working optimally. JavaDoc, for example, is problematic. With an automated Checkstyle, it can be assured that this API documentation exists, although we have no idea about the quality of those descriptions.

There should be no need to discuss the benefits of testing in this case; let us rather take a walkthrough of test coverage. The industry standard of 85% of covered code in test cases should be followed because coverage at less than 85% will not reach the complex parts of your application. 100% coverage just burns down your budget fast without resulting in higher benefits. A prime example of this is the TP-CORE project, whose test coverage is mostly between 92% to 95%. This was done to see real possibilities.

As already explained, the business layer contains just interfaces, defining the API. This layer is explicitly excluded from the coverage checks. Another package is called internal and it contains hidden implementations, like the SAX DocumentHandler. Because of the dependencies the DocumentHandler is bound to, it is very difficult to test this class directly, even with Mocks. This is unproblematic given that the purpose of this class is only for internal usage. In addition, the class is implicitly tested by the implementation using the DocumentHandler. To reach higher coverage, it also could be an option to exclude all internal implementations from checks. But it is always a good idea to observe the implicit coverage of those classes to detect aspects you may be unaware of.

Besides the low-level unit tests, automated acceptance tests should also be run. Paying close attention to these points may avoid a variety of problems. But never trust those fully automated checks blindly! Regularly repeated manual code inspections will always be mandatory, especially when working with external vendors. In our talk at JCON 2019, we demonstrated how simply test coverage could be faked. To detect other vulnerabilities you can additionally run checkers like SpotBugs and others more.

Tests don’t indicate that an application is free of failures, but they indicate a defined behavior for implemented functionality.

For a while now, SCM suites like GitLab or Microsoft Azure support pull requests, introduced long ago in GitHub. Those workflows are nothing new; IBM Synergy used to apply the same technique. A Build Manager was responsible to merge the developers’ changes into the codebase. In a rapid manner, all the revisions performed by the developer are just added into the repository by the Build Manager, who does not hold a sufficiently profound knowledge to decide about the implementation quality. It was the usual practice to simply secure that the build is not broken and always the compile produce an artifact.

Enterprises have discovered this as a new strategy to handle pull requests. Now, managers often make the decision to use pull requests as a quality gate. In my personal experience, this slows down productivity because it takes time until the changes are available in the codebase. Understanding of the branch and merge mechanism helps you to decide for a simpler branch model, like release branch lines. On those branches tools like SonarQube operate to observe the overall quality goal.

If a project needs an orchestrated build, with a defined order how artifacts have to create, you have a strong hint for a refactoring.

The coupling between classes and modules is often underestimated. It is very difficult to have an automated visualization for the bindings of modules. You will find out very fast the effect it has when a light coupling is violated because of an increment of complexity in your build logic.

Repeat Your Success

Rest assured, changes will happen! It is a challenge to keep your application open for adjustments. Several of the previous recommendations have implicit effects on future maintenance. A good source quality simplifies the endeavor of being prepared. But there is no guarantee. In the worst cases the end of the product lifecycle, EOL is reached, when mandatory improvements or changes cannot be realized anymore because of an eroded code base, for example.

As already mentioned, light coupling brings with it numerous benefits with respect to maintenance and reutilization. To reach this goal is not that difficult as it might look. In the first place, try to avoid as much as possible the inclusion of third-party libraries. Just to check if a String is empty or NULL it is unnecessary to depend on an external library. These few lines are fast done by oneself. A second important point to be considered in relation to external libraries: “Only one library to solve a problem.” If your project deals with JSON then decide one one implementation and don’t incorporate various artifacts. These two points heavily impact on security: a third-party artifact we can avoid using will not be able to cause any security leaks.

After the decision is taken for an external implementation, try to cover the usage in your project by applying design patterns like proxy, facade, or wrapper. This allows for a replacement more easily because the code changes are not spread around the whole codebase. You don’t need to change everything at once if you follow the advice on how to name the implementation class and provide an interface. Even though a SCM is designed for collaboration, there are limitations when more than one person is editing the same file. Using a design pattern to hide information allows you an iterative update of your changes.

Conclusion

As we have seen: a nonfunctional requirement is not that difficult to describe. With a short checklist, you can clearly define the important aspects for your project. It is not necessary to check all points for every code commit in the repository, this would with all probability just elevate costs and doesn’t result in higher benefits. Running a full check around a day before the release represents an effective solution to keep quality in an agile context and will help recognizing where optimization is necessary. Points of Interests (POI) to secure quality are the revisions in the code base for a release. This gives you a comparable statistic and helps increasing estimations.

Of course, in this short article, it is almost impossible to cover all aspects regarding quality. We hope our explanation helps you to link theory by examples to best practice. In conclusion, this should be your main takeaway: a high level of automation within your infrastructure, like continuous integration, is extremely helpful, but doesn’t prevent you from manual code reviews and audits.

Checklist

Follow common standards
KISS – keep it simple, stupid!
Equal directory structure for different projects
Simple META architecture, which can reuse as much as possible in other projects
Defined and follow coding styles
If a release got prepared – no compiler warnings are accepted
Have test coverage up to 85%
Avoid third-party libraries as much as possible
Don’t support more than one technology for a specific problem (e. g., JSON)
Cover foreign code by a design pattern
Avoid strong object/module coupling

Acceptance Tests in Java With JGiven

Posted on 2020-01-01 by Elmar Dott

published also on DZone 01.2020

Most of the developer community know what a unit test is, even they don’t write them. But there is still hope. The situation is changing. More and more projects hosted on GitHub contain unit tests.

In a standard set-up for Java projects like NetBeans, Maven, and JUnit, it is not that difficult to produce your first test code. Besides, this approach is used in Test Driven Development (TDD) and exists in other technologies like Behavioral Driven Development (BDD), also known as acceptance tests, which is what we will focus on in this article.

Difference Between Unit and Acceptance Tests

The easiest way to become familiar with this topic is to look at a simple comparison between unit and acceptance tests. In this context, unit tests are very low level. They execute a function and compare the output with an expected result. Some people think differently about it, but in our example, the only one responsible for a unit test is the developer.

Keep in mind that the test code is placed in the project and always gets executed when the build is running. This provides quick feedback as to whether or not something went wrong. As long the test doesn’t cover too many aspects, we are able to identify the problem quickly and provide a solution. The design principle of those tests follows the AAA paradigm. Define a precondition (Arrange), execute the invariant (Act), and check the postconditions (Assume). We will come back to this approach a little later.

When we check the test coverage with tools like JaCoCo and cover more than 85 percent of our code with test cases, we can expect good quality. During the increasing test coverage, we specify our test cases more precisely and are able to identify some optimizations. This can be removing or inverting conditions because during the tests we find out, it is almost impossible to reach those sections. Of course, the topic is a bit more complicated, but those details could be discussed in another article.

Acceptance test are same classified like unit tests. They belong to the family of regression tests. This means we want to observe if changes we made on the code have no effects on already worked functionality. In other words, we want to secure that nothing already is working got broken, because of some side effects of our changes. The tool of our choice is JGiven [1]. Before we look at some examples, first, we need to touch on a bit of theory.

JGiven In-Depth

The test cases we define in JGiven is called a scenario. A scenario is a collection of four classes, the scenario itself, the Given displayed as given (Arrange), the Action displayed as when (Act) and Outcome displayed as then (Assume).

In most projects, especially when there is a huge amount of scenarios and the execution consumes a lot of time, acceptance tests got organized in a separate project. With a build job on your CI server, you can execute those tests once a day to get fast feedback and to react early if something is broken. The code example we demonstrate contains everything in one project on GitHub [2] because it is just a small library and a separation would just over-engineer the project. Usually, the one responsible for acceptance tests is the test center, not the developer.

The sample project TP-CORE is organized by a layered architecture. For our example, we picked out the functionality for sending e-mails. The basic functionality to compose an e-mail is realized in the application layer and has a test coverage of up to 90 percent. The functionality to send the e-mail is defined in the service layer.

In our architecture, we decided that the service layer is our center of attention to defining acceptance tests. Here, we want to see if our requirement to send an e-mail is working well. Supporting this layer with our own unit tests is not that efficient because, in commercial projects, it just produces costs without winning benefits. Also, having also unit tests means we have to do double the work because our JGiven tests already demonstrate and prove that our function is well working. For those reasons, it makes no sense to generate test coverage for the test scenarios of the acceptance test.

Let’s start with a practice example. At first, we need to include our acceptance test framework into our Maven build. In case you prefer Gradle, you can use the same GAV parameters to define the dependencies in your build script.

<dependency>
   <groupId>com.tngtech.jgiven</groupId>
   <artifactId>jgiven-junit</artifactId>
   <version>0.18.2</version>
   <scope>test</scope>
</dependency>

XML

Listing 1: Dependency for Maven.

As you can see in listing 1, JGiven works well together with JUnit. An integration to TestNG also exists , you just need to replace the artifactId for jgiven-testng. To enable the HTML reports, you need to configure the Maven plugin in the build lifecycle, like it is shown in Listing 2.

<build> 
   <plugins>
      <plugin>
         <groupId>com.tngtech.jgiven</groupId>
         <artifactId>jgiven-maven-plugin</artifactId>
         <version>0.18.2</version>
         <executions>
            <execution>
               <goals>
                  <goal>report</goal>
               </goals>
            </execution>
         </executions>
         <configuration>
            <format>html</format>
         </configuration>
      </plugin>
   </plugins>
</build>

XML

Listing 2: Maven Plugin Configuration for JGiven.

The report of our scenarios in the TP-CORE project is shown in image 1. As we can see, the output is very descriptive and human-readable. This result will be explained by following some naming conventions for our methods and classes, which will be explained in detail below. First, let’s discuss what we can see in our test scenario. We defined five preconditions:

The configuration for the SMPT server is readable
The SMTP server is available
The mail has a recipient
The mail has attachments
The mail is full composed

If all these conditions are true, the action will send a single e-mail got performed. Afterward, after the SMTP server is checked, we see that the mail has arrived. For the SMTP service, we use the small Java library greenmail [3] to emulate an SMTP server. Now it is understandable why it is advantageous for acceptance tests if they are written by other people. This increases the quality as early on conceptional inconsistencies appear. Because as long as the tester with the available implementations cannot map the required scenario, the requirement is not fully implemented.

Producing Descriptive Scenarios

Now is the a good time to dive deeper into the implementation details of our send e-mail test scenario. Our object under test is the class MailClientService. The corresponding test class is MailClientScenarioTest, defined in the test packages. The scenario class definition is shown in listing 3.

@RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class)
public class MailClientScenarioTest
       extends ScenarioTest<MailServiceGiven, MailServiceAction, MailServiceOutcome> { 
    // do something 
}

Java

Listing 3: Acceptance Test Scenario for JGiven.

As we can see, we execute the test framework with JUnit5. In the ScenarioTest, we can see the three classes: Given, Action, and Outcome in a special naming convention. It is also possible to reuse already defined classes, but be careful with such practices. This can cost some side effects. Before we now implement the test method, we need to define the execution steps. The procedure for the three classes are equivalent.

@RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class)
public class MailServiceGiven 
       extends Stage<MailServiceGiven> { 

    public MailServiceGiven email_has_recipient(MailClient client) {
        try { 
            assertEquals(1, client.getRecipentList().size());
        } catch (Exception ex) {
            System.err.println(ex.getMessage);
        }
        return self(); 
    } 
} 

@RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class)
public class MailServiceAction
       extends Stage<MailServiceAction> { 

    public MailServiceAction send_email(MailClient client) {
        MailClientService service = new MailClientService();
        try {
            assertEquals(1, client.getRecipentList().size());
            service.sendEmail(client);
        } catch (Exception ex) { 
            System.err.println(ex.getMessage);
        }
        return self();
    }
}

@RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class)
public class MailServiceOutcome 
       extends Stage<MailServiceOutcome> {

    public MailServiceOutcome email_is_arrived(MimeMessage msg) { 
         try {
             Address adr = msg.getAllRecipients()[0];
             assertEquals("JGiven Test E-Mail", msg.getSubject());
             assertEquals("noreply@sample.org", msg.getSender().toString());
             assertEquals("otto@sample.org", adr.toString());
             assertNotNull(msg.getSize());
         } catch (Exception ex) {
             System.err.println(ex.getMessage);
         }
         return self();
    }
}

Java

Listing 4: Implementing the AAA Principle for Behavioral Driven Development.

Now, we completed the cycle and we can see how the test steps got stuck together. JGiven supports a bigger vocabulary to fit more necessities. To explore the full possibilities, please consult the documentation.

Lessons Learned

In this short workshop, we passed all the important details to start with automated acceptance tests. Besides JGiven exist other frameworks, like Concordion or FitNesse fighting for usage. Our choice for JGiven was its helpful documentation, simple integration into Maven builds and JUnit tests, and the descriptive human-readable reports.

As negative point, which could people keep away from JGiven, could be the detail that you need to describe the tests in the Java programming language. That means the test engineer needs to be able to develop in Java, if they want to use JGiven. Besides this small detail, our experience with JGiven is absolutely positive.

No post found

Docker Basics in less than 10 minutes

Posted on 2019-08-30 by Elmar Dott

This short tutorial covers the most fundamental steps to use docker in your development tool chain. After we introduced the basic theory, we will learn how to install docker on a Linux OS (Ubuntu Mate). When this is done we have a short walk through to download an image and instantiate the container. The example use the official PHP 7.3 image with an Apache 2 HTTP Server.

InPerson (remote) Training’s (Courses) /

Maven for Developer & DevOps

Docker for Developers

DevOps practical training for (Java) developer

The new Java Release Cycle

Posted on 2019-06-23 by Elmar Dott

After Oracle introduces the new release cycle for Java I was not convinced of this new strategy. Even today I still have a different opinion. One of the point I criticize is the disregard of semantic versioning. Also the argument with this new cycle is more easy to deliver more faster new features, I’m not agree. In my opinion could occur some problems in the future. But wait, let’s start from the beginning, before I share my complete thoughts at once.

The six month release cycle Oracle announced in 2017 for Java ensure some insecurity to the community. The biggest fear was formulated by the popular question: Will be Java in future not anymore for free? Of course the answer is a clear no, but there are some impacts for companies they should be aware of it. If we think on huge Applications in production, are some points addressed to the risk management and the business continuing strategy. If the LTS support for security updates after the 3rd year of a published release have to be paid, force well defined strategies for updates into production. I see myself spending in future more time to migrate my projects to new java versions than implement new functionalities. One solution to avoid a permanent update orgy is move away from the Oracle JVM to OpenJDK.

In professional environment is quite popular that companies define a fixed setup to keep security. When I always are forced to update my components without a proof the new features are secure, it could create problems. Commercial projects running under other circumstances and need often special attention. Because you need a well defined environment where you know everything runs stable. Follow the law never touch a running system.

Absolutely I can understand the intention of Oracle to take this step. I guess it’s a way to get rid of old buggy and insecure installations. To secure the internet a bit more. Of course you can not support decades old deprecated versions. This have a heavy financial impact. but I wish they had chosen an less rough strategy. It’s sadly that the business often operate in this way. I wished it exist a more trustful communication.

By experience of preview releases of Java it always was taken a time until they get stable. In this context I remind myself to some heavy issues I was having with the change to 64 bit versions. The typical motto: latest is greatest, could be dangerous. Specially time based releases are good candidates for problems, even when the team is experienced. The pressure is extremely high to deliver in time.

Another fact which could discuss is the semantic versioning. It is a very powerful process, I always recommend. I ask myself If there really every six months new language features to have the reason increasing the Major number? Even for patches and enhancements? But what happens when in future is no new language enhancement? By the way adding by force often new features could decrease quality. In my opinion Java includes many educative features and not every new feature request increase the language capabilities. A simple example is the well known GOTO statement in other languages. When you learn programming often your mentor told you – it exist something if you see it you should run away. Never use GOTO. In Java inner classes I often compare with GOTO, because I think this should avoid. Until now I didn’t find any case where inner classes not a hint for design problems. The same is the heavy usage of functional statements. I can’t find any benefit to define a for loop as lambda function instead of the classical way.

In my opinion it looks like Oracle try to get some pieces from the cake to increase their business. Well this is not something bad,. But in the view of project management I don’t believe it is a well chosen strategy.

[ays_poll id=”2″]

No post found

Modern Times (for Configuration Manager)

Posted on 2019-04-06 by Elmar Dott

Heavy motivation to automate everything, even the automation itself, is the common understanding of the most DevOps teams. There seems to be a dire necessity to automate everything – even automation itself. This is common understanding and therefore motivation for most DevOps teams. Let’s have a look on typical Continuous Stupidities during a transformation from a pure Configuration Management to DevOps Engineer.

In my role as Configuration and Release Manager, I saw in close to every project I joined, gaps in the build structure or in the software architecture, I had to fix by optimizing the build jobs. But often you can’t fix symptoms like long running build scripts with just a few clicks. In his post I will give brief introduction about common problems in software projects, you need to overcome before you really think about implementing a DevOps culture.

Build logic can’t fix a broken architecture. A huge amount of SCM merging conflicts occur, because of missing encapsulation of business logic. A function which is spread through many modules or services have a high likelihood that a file will be touched by more than one developer.
The necessity of orchestrated builds is a hint of architectural problems.Transitive dependencies, missing encapsulation and a heavy dependency chain are typical reasons to run into the chicken and egg problem. Design your artifacts as much as possible independent.
Build logic have developed by Developers, not by Administrators. Persons which focused in Operations have different concepts to maintain artifact builds, than a software developer. A good anti pattern example of a build structure is webMethofs of Software AG. They don‘ t provide a repository server like Sonatype Nexus to share dependencies. The build always point to the dependencies inside a webMethods installation. This practice violate the basic idea of build automation, which mentioned in the book book ‚Practices of an Agile Developer‘ from 2006.
Not everything at once. Split up the build jobs to specific goals, like create artifact, run acceptance tests, create API documentation and generate reports. If one of the last steps fail you don’t need to repeat everything. The execution time of the build get dramatically reduced and it is easier to maintain the build infrastructure.
Don’t give to much flexibility to your build infrastructure. This point is strongly related to the first topic I explains. When a build manager have less discipline he will create extremely complex scripts nobody is able to understand. The JavaScript task runner Grunt is a example how a build logic can get messy and unreadable. This is one of the reason, why my favorite build tool for Java projects is always decided to Maven, because it takes governance of understandable builds.
There is no requirement to automate the automation. By definition have complex automation levels higher costs than simple tasks. Always think before, about the benefits you get of your automation activities to see if it make sens to spend time and money for it.
We do what we can, but can we what we do? Or in the words by Gardy Bloch „A fool with a tool is still a fool“. Understand the requirements of your project and decide based on that which tool you choose. If you don’t have the resources even the most professional solution can not support you. If you understood your problem you are be able to learn new professional advanced processes.
Build logic have run first on the local development environment. If your build runs not on your local development machine than don’t call it build logic. It is just a hack. Build logic have to be platform and IDE independent.
Don’t mix up source repositories. The organization of the sources into several folders inside a huge directory, creates just a complex build whiteout any flexibility. Sources should structured by technology or separate independent modules.

Many of the point I mentioned can understood by comparing the current Situation in almost every project. The solution to fix the things in a healthy manner is in the most cases not that complicated. It needs just a bit of attention and well planning. The most important advice I can give is follow the KISS principle. Keep it simple, stupid. This means follow as much as possible the standard process without modifications. You don’t need to reinvent the wheel. There are reasons why a standard becomes to a standard. Here is a short plan you can follow.

First: understand the problem.
Second: investigate about a standard solution for the process.
Third: develop a plan to apply the solution in the existing process landscape. This implies to kick out tools which not support standard processes.

If you follow step by step you own pan, without jumping to more far ten the ext point, you can see quite fast positive results.

By the way. If you think you like to have a guiding to reach a success DevOps process, don’t hesitate to contact me. I offer hands on Consulting and also training to build up a powerful DevOps team.

InPerson (remote) Training’s (Courses) /

Maven for Developer & DevOps

Docker for Developers

DevOps practical training for (Java) developer

No post found

Apache License 2.0

Posted on 2004-01-03 by Elmar Dott

Apache License
Version 2.0, January 2004
http://www.apache.org/licenses/

TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION

1. Definitions.

“License” shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction, and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this document.

“Licensor” shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by the copyright owner that is granting the License.

“Legal Entity” shall mean the union of the acting entity and all other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common control with that entity. For the purposes of this definition, “control” means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity.

“You” (or “Your“) shall mean an individual or Legal Entity exercising permissions granted by this License.

“Source” form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications, including but not limited to software source code, documentation source, and configuration files.

“Object” form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical transformation or translation of a Source form, including but not limited to compiled object code, generated documentation, and conversions to other media types.

“Work” shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work (an example is provided in the Appendix below).

“Derivative Works” shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof.

“Contribution” shall mean any work of authorship, including the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of the copyright owner. For the purposes of this definition, “submitted” means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Licensor for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by the copyright owner as “Not a Contribution.“

“Contributor” shall mean Licensor and any individual or Legal Entity on behalf of whom a Contribution has been received by Licensor and subsequently incorporated within the Work.

2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.

3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions:

You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and
You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and
You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and
If the Work includes a “NOTICE” text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the License.

You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.

5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or conditions. Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions.

6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor, except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.

7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each Contributor provides its Contributions) on an “AS IS” BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License.

8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory, whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise, unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be liable to You for damages, including any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising as a result of this License or out of the use or inability to use the Work (including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill, work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all other commercial damages or losses), even if such Contributor has been advised of the possibility of such damages.

9. Accepting Warranty or Additional Liability. While redistributing the Work or Derivative Works thereof, You may choose to offer, and charge a fee for, acceptance of support, warranty, indemnity, or other liability obligations and/or rights consistent with this License. However, in accepting such obligations, You may act only on Your own behalf and on Your sole responsibility, not on behalf of any other Contributor, and only if You agree to indemnify, defend, and hold each Contributor harmless for any liability incurred by, or claims asserted against, such Contributor by reason of your accepting any such warranty or additional liability.

END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

HOW TO APPLY THE APACHE LICENSE TO YOUR WORK

Include a copy of the Apache License, typically in a file called LICENSE, in your work, and consider also including a NOTICE file that references the License.

To apply the Apache License to specific files in your work, attach the following boilerplate declaration, replacing the fields enclosed by brackets “[]” with your own identifying information. (Don’t include the brackets!) Enclose the text in the appropriate comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that you include a file or class name and description of purpose on the same “printed page” as the copyright notice for easier identification within third-party archives.

Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]

Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
You may obtain a copy of the License at

    http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
limitations under the License.